Muda69

All corporations?

The Green New Deal: Economics and Policy Analytics - https://www.aei.org/spotlight/green-new-deal/ Is "By any means necessary" in the BP mission statement? Why do you hate profit, Night Hawk?

https://reason.com/2019/04/24/the-contradiction-at-the-heart-of-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-plan/ Sanders calls this Medicare for All, but what he's describing isn't Medicare as we now know it. As The New York Times noted earlier this year upon the release of a Sanders-inspired Medicare for All bill in the House, the new program would "drastically reshape Medicare itself," changing both what it pays for and how. In many ways, it would be a completely different program. Medicare for All, in other words, isn't really Medicare. And that program would be far more expansive and expensive than nearly any other comparable system. It would cover more, and require less direct financial outlays (not including taxes), than either today's Medicare or typical private insurance plans in the U.S. It would also be substantially more generous than the national health systems set up in other countries. Sanders likes to unfavorably contrast America's mixed public-private health care system with foreign systems where the government is more directly involved. When he announced the 2017 version of his Medicare for All plan, for example, he bemoaned the state of affairs in the United States "a time when every other major country on earth guarantees health care to every man, woman, and child." Discussions about health care policy on social media often include some variant of the question, "If every other country with a developed economy can do it, why can't the United States?" The problem with this line of questioning is that what Sanders is proposing isn't what other countries do. Canada, for example, has a single-payer system, but it doesn't cover dental care, vision, drugs, or any number of other services. A majority of Canadians carry private insurance in order to cover those services. In Britain, which offers a fully socialized medical system where health care providers are government employees, many resident still buy private coverage. Sanders, on the other hand, would effectively wipe out private coverage in the space of just four years. There are similar limitations on coverage in other countries, like the Netherlands. It's also true in Australia, where patients typically pay a percentage of the cost of specialty services. It's true that in these countries, government plays a more central role in health care financing. But their systems have also reckoned with costs and tradeoffs in a way that Sanders, after so many years, has not. Indeed, the main trade-off that Sanders seems willing to discuss is the elimination of insurance companies, which he portrays as greedy middlemen driving up the cost of health care. Wiping out the industry in one fell swoop, as Sanders has proposed, would be a unprecedented and disruptive move that would have significant economic repercussions, including the probable loss of thousands of insurance industry jobs. But it still wouldn't do much to bring down the cost of health care, because so much money in the nation's health care system is tied up in provider payments, especially hospitals. And therein lies the contradiction. Most people probably think of hospitals as places where you go to get health care services. Politically and economically, however, they also fulfill another role: They are hubs for stable middle-class jobs, paying reasonably good wages to thousands of highly trained workers, most of whom are not doctors or specialists earning stratospheric salaries. To acquire the revenue to pay for all these jobs, hospitals rely on a mix of private and public payments. Public payments make up a somewhat larger share of total hospital budgets, but private payers are typically charged much higher prices. Hospitals like to argue that Medicare and Medicaid payments are too low to cover their costs, and that as a result, higher private payments effectively subsidize public health coverage. Critics (with some evidence) often respond that hospitals either overstate or don't really understand their own costs, and that this is just a ploy to extract more money from government health programs and private payers. But when considering Medicare for All, the particulars of this debate are largely beside the point, because there is simply no question that eliminating private insurance and payment for all services would drastically reduce the amount of revenue for hospitals. Yet that is exactly what Sanders wants to do. His plan calls for paying for health care services at Medicare rates, which means that, practically overnight, hospitals would end up with far, far less revenue. Exactly how much is unclear, but one estimate indicated that payments could drop by as much as 40 percent. That would leave hospitals with a couple of difficult choices. They could eliminate services. They could try to force some employees to take pay cuts. They could fire large numbers of workers. Or they could simply shut down. As a recent New York Timesreport on how Medicare for All would affect hospitals noted, rural hospitals—many of which are already struggling to stay afloat—would be particularly at risk of closing. Whatever ended up happening, there is simply no way most hospitals would or could continue operating as they do now under the payment regime that Sanders envisions. Lots of middle class jobs would disappear. Services would be eliminated or cut back. Yet Sanders not only imagines that hospitals would continue to operate as they do now, but that they would expand their services to even more people, since more people would have coverage. And since he also imagines a system with no deductibles or copays, those people would almost certainly end up dramatically increasing utilization of hospital services. Studies of health insurance have consistently shown that expansions of health insurance result in increased demand for (and use of) health care services; more people with coverage means more people lining up to get care. (Relatedly, introducing even very small copays—on the order of just a few dollars—can reduce the number of visits to doctors and hospitals.) Greater utilization of health care services does not necessarily translate into measurably better physical health outcomes. But it does increase the strain on the health care delivery system—which is to say, it puts a huge amount of pressure on hospitals. So what Sanders is proposing is a massive reduction in funding for health care services at the exact moment that the system experiences a massive increase in demand. It would be difficult to do either. Sanders wants to do both at the same time. It is a recipe for disaster—and a contradiction that Sanders has so far barely acknowledged, much less resolved. Spot-on analysis and commentary by Mr. Suderman. Mr. Sander's "Medicare for all" plan would be a disaster if implemented.

*yawn* Not that old canard again: https://fee.org/articles/cal-and-the-big-cal-amity/

So Bernie is advocating for a $100+ an hour minimum wage? And the "free money" in the form of virtually unlimited federal students loans has been a big reason behind skyrocketing college costs in the first place.

When will that happen? Do you think it is in evil BP's future plans? I don't have the time to link to 90% of your posts. Sorry.

How many years until the Cuyahoga goes up in flames again, once evil money and the evil trump administration guts the EPA and the Clean Air Act? Yes, in terms that you seem to blindly approve of most federal government regulation/control.

Most of your statements on this forum point to otherwise.

As if you pay attention to anybody else's 'vision' but you own big-government view.

Waiting on Hillary.

I'm just making a logical response to your "give them time" comment. Haven't the evil, polluting, money hungry corporations had 50 years now since the passage of the Clean Air Act and the formation of the EPA to effectively weaken and gut both? As is your vision of a "government regulation fixes everything" utopia.

Joe Biden Officially Enters the Presidential Race: https://reason.com/2019/04/25/joe-biden-officially-enters-the-presidential-race/

So the real lobbying of Congress by evil, polluting, money hungry corporations only started after the Citizens United decision? Interesting take.

You have a reasonable timeline if my prognostication came true? And if the evil, polluting, money hungry corporations and lobbying dough carry all the weight as you claim, why hasn't the Clean Air Act and the EPA been effectively gutted and rendered ineffective by this lobbying power? Why isn't the Cuyahoga burning today?

Since many of them spend a significant % of their monthly income on paying off student loans, cash that could have be used for investment, I can see the allure of a "get rich quick" scheme like the lottery.

Or reduce everyone's taxes! Upfront! And we would have more cash to spend, invest, donate, etc.

Who here truly believes that today, in 2019, if the federal clean air act was repealed and the federal EPA was abolished that the Cuyahoga and other often polluted rivers would burst into flames by the end of the year? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? Much has changed since 1963, and I believe public sentiment is truly against private corporations that pollute. And that sentiment/pressure holds a lot of weight.

Can the Roberts Court Save Donald Trump from an Impeachment?: https://reason.com/2019/04/24/can-the-roberts-court-save-donald-trump-from-an-impeachment/ Chief Justice William Rehnquist even speculated about the problem of judicial review of a presidential impeachment. The modern Court does not often seem inclined to invoke the political question doctrine, but here at least the justices were willing to admit that the Constitution had committed this question into the hands of the legislature, not the judiciary. Perhaps there are circumstances that might tempt the justices to assert judicial supremacy over impeachments as well. After all, the Court is fond of reminding us that it is emphatically a judicial task to say what the law is, and what if Congress seemed to be riding roughshod over the Constitution in how it used the impeachment power? Imagine a Congress willing to impeach a president on grounds that no reasonable person could think constitutes an impeachable offense. Donald Trump apparently prefers to eat his steaks well-done with ketchup. To be sure, this is a grievous offense, but presumably no one thinks it is a high crime or misdemeanor. Imagine further that two-thirds of the Senate is willing convict such a president with no semblance of a trial. "Convict first, go through due process second," declares the Senate majority leader. The Court might well think that such a Congress has badly abused its constitutional powers and is not even making a pretense of adhering to a good-faith interpretation of the Constitution. Maybe a Court confronted with such a runaway Congress would be tempted to ride to the president's rescue and discover the limits to the political question doctrine. But that's when politics comes into play. A Congress willing to impeach and remove a sitting president on the pretext that he routinely dishonors his steaks could hardly be trusted to sit idly by while the justices attempted to reinstall that president in the White House. If a Court were to attempt to intervene in such a scenario, the justices might well find themselves next on the chopping block. The justices might at this point recall the words of Chief Justice Salmon Chase when the Court was asked to order the president not to enforce the Reconstruction Acts in Mississippi after the Civil War. "These questions answer themselves," Chase observed. Indeed. Sorry, Mr. President, you are on your own on this one. Only somebody like Mr. Trump, who believes the government ultimately serves him, would seriously consider such a thing. Pitiful.

Your bolded statement still tells me you don't comprehend, or just refuse to comprehend, Mr. Murray's analysis. And again hindsight, especially looking back to 1963 and prior, is 20/20.

Free Lori Loughlin and All Political Prisoners: https://mises.org/wire/free-lori-loughlin-and-all-political-prisoners

Yes, because the Ohio state government fought private business and the local government: Again FTA (you really need to learn how to read and comprehend): By the 1960s, the state of Ohio had basically taken “ownership” of the river. That put the Cuyahoga’s fate in the hands of bureaucrats in Columbus, the state capital, 120 miles from Cleveland, and nowhere near the Cuyahoga. They officially declared the river to be for “industrial use.” These state-issued permits completely smashed the recourse the people of Cleveland would traditionally have: common law tort. The state licenses the industries and gives them legal authority to dump in the river. Actually, the state gives them a license to pollute.

What authority does the federal government possess to issue environmental regulations - or to protect the environment at all?: http://www.tenthamendment.net/home/epa-environment-constitution.asp

Again FTA, The leading businesses of the area formed the Cuyahoga River Basin Water Quality Committee in 1963. In 1968, voters approved by a two-to-one margin a bond issue totaling $100 million for the purposes of cleaning up and protecting the river. Hindsight is always 20/20, is it not?